Wednesday, August 25

Japanese Dolphin Kill Documentary 'The Cove' to Air on the Animal Planet channel

The Japanese Dolphin slaughter documentary will be shown on Animal Planet on Sunday night. So if you have not seen it yet, now is your chance:
Academy Award Winner, The Cove chronicles activist Ric O'Barry's fight to reveal the monstrous dolphin massacres that are taking place in various pockets of the world's waters, capturing the wrongdoings of the secretive dolphin industry in Taiji, Japan. - Animal Planet
Here is a trailer of the documentary. I have watched it and found it to be very interesting as well as very disturbing. The Japanese people should be very ashamed that this is going on in their country. As if killing whales under the ruse of 'research' wasn't enough already.

Trailer link.

Visit the documentary website here.

Add to Google

Monday, August 16

There is no reason to build a mosque at or near Ground Zero

Like many people, I have been following the Ground Zero Mosque. Of course, the President has to weigh in on the side of the mosque builders. Unfortunately, a real President would have sided on the signs of Americans in opposition to building this mosque where they want to.

Here are some issues I have with the Ground Zero Mosque.

As noted on the Ace of Spades Blog, they want to build this right against the Ground Zero site.

Along with the location issue, just how many muslims live in lower Manhattan? There can't be all that many given that it is a business area. There does not appear to be many at all given this search in Google Maps, which shows only a few mosques and centers in all of Manhattan.

The lack of mosques in Manhattan in general is a perfect example of how this new mosque is not needed. After all, it is not like Manhattan was built yesterday and they had not yet gotten around to building the mosque. New York City is one of America's oldest cities and has been around for a couple hundred years. There is a reason why there are no large mosques in Manhattan.

This brings out another issue in that Islam has no real historical roots in Manhattan. There is no abundance of mosques up in Northern Manhattan where Harlem is, where you would think there would be, if anywhere. Islam was just not present. So why should some outsiders all of a sudden simply be allowed to shove a mosque in where it doesn't belong.

Mosque building is a funny thing. I have been to a number of muslim countries. In general, muslims build two things; mosques and bombs. Sure, you have places like Dubai, which has built a whole city out of the sand. But that was not based on any sort of rational decision-making. Cities grow because they are alive. Dubai was built with the idea that if you build it they will come. That seems to be the same idea with this mosque. Manhattan was built into a great city because the people came to it and it grew from that life.

Finally, as a larger issue, I do not think that Islam in general is a religion that is compatible with the spirit of the US. It is repeated over and over that the 9/11 terrorists are not symbolic of islam in general. In they they hijacked islam. My position is that this is representative of islam. Because if islam was hijacked, why is there no evidence of that. (See my post: Islam was not Hijacked)

So if the builders of the Obama-endorsed Ground Zero mosque want to exert their right to build a mosque on the edge of an islam-invoked terror-site. I look forward to others invoking their right to not help them in their task. There is already a call for construction workers to take a pledge not to help build the mosque. That is a great start. There are lots of others who can join in that pledge as well to thwart the construction, such as truck drivers, suppliers, equipment lessors, etc. New Yorkers and Americans in general can do anything they put their mind to. the Government for some reason has seen fit to endorse this project. It is now up to the people to stop it.
Add to Google

Friday, August 13

U.S. Frees Puerto Rican Terrorist Leader Decades Early

Furthering the Democrat problem of being soft on terrorism and the Obama mission of embracing our enemies, the Obama Administration has released a domestic terrorist for no reason whatsoever, other than to make friends with those who have waged war with the US and it's population:
An unrepentant terrorist who helped orchestrate more than 100 U.S. bombings as a member of a violent Puerto Rican extremist group has been quietly released from prison after serving less than half of his sentence.

Mum’s the word from Camp Obama but it’s likely that Attorney General Eric Holder was behind the abhorrent action. After all, Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton’s scandalous last-minute pardons and commutations, including those of 16 members of the same Puerto Rican terrorist group, known as Armed Forces of National Liberation or FALN for is Spanish acronym.

The recently freed FALN leader, Carlos Torres, served only 30 years of his 78-year sentence for his role in carrying out numerous attacks within the United States during the late 1970s and early ‘80s. The militant separatist group executed around 130 bombings of government and financial buildings in the nation’s capital, Chicago and New York, killing at least six people and injuring scores of others to protest the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. - Judicial Watch
Just what was the FALN:
The Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (English: Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN) was a Puerto Rican clandestine paramilitary organization that, through direct action, advocated complete independence for Puerto Rico. At the time of its dissolution, the FALN was responsible for more than 120 bomb attacks on United States targets between 1974 and 1983. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies the FALN as a terrorist organization. - Wikipedia
This terrorist was a leader of a group that carried out attacks within the US that resulted in deaths and injuries. And Obama saw fit to set him free. Just another example of what people voted for. Before this Presidency is over, they will be calling for the release of the DC sniper, because in Obama's eyes, he is a victim too.
Add to Google

Thursday, August 12

Drill Sergeant as Therapist - Video

I saw this cool Geico commercial once on TV. Not sure why they are not showing this more:
Does a former Drill Sergeant make a terrible therapist? You be the judge after watching R. Lee Ermey in one of the latest GEICO commercials - Link

I love it!

Now just image... Barack Obama as therapist...

Add to Google

Tuesday, August 10

Finnish Women Need Foreign Men!

Having lived in Finland for a couple years, the fact that there was an overabundance of woman in the Helsinki Capital City area was not exactly news to me.
Approximately 3,000 Finnish citizens marry foreigners each year. These unions increase immigration into this country, although of course in some cases the couples choose to live elsewhere.

Common-law marriages and marriages account for something like 60,000 foreign nationals having come to Finland - a figure well in excess of the refugee population, for instance.

In Helsinki, the numbers are already substantial: more than one in four marriages in the capital are between a Finn and a foreign partner. There is no great wonder in this, since Helsinki boasts thousands more women of marriagable age than it has eligible bachelors.

Many educated urban Finnish women actually go and seek out a spouse from Western Europe. For example, four out of five of the British citizens living in Finland are male. As a general rule, they are also well educated. - Helsingin Sanomat
When my wife read this her first comment was that of the available Finnish men, about 30% of them are un-date-able, making the shortage even greater. From my experience, there were Finnish women who only dated foreigners. This is why Helsinki is such a great place to work or go to school, if you are a foreign male. Oddly enough, the same is not true for foreign women. At least not according to my MBA classmates.

The story also goes into the problems that foreign men have in finding employment in Finland, despite being highly educated and trained. This problem I can relate to given how hard I tried to find work while living there, before giving up and moving back to the States. Traditionally, the excuse not to hire a foreigner has been the inability to understand the Finnish language. This excuse appears to be wearing thin as more and more foreigners actually learn the language. I still remember the shock of one interview when I responded to him, in Finnish, when he mentioned that I needed to speak Finnish for the job. Quickly Finnish was not to important any longer and Swedish (Finland's other official language) was what I needed to know. Basically, for many of the jobs, lack of Finnish language skills was being used as a simple excuse not to hire a foreigner.
Murat Yüzlü opens up his diary-cum-order-book on the table of a café in downtown Helsinki. It is full.

There is no shortage of work for a business consultant and interpreter, it seems. But as far as Yüzlü's specific field is concerned - managerial positions in the hotel and travel business - things are rather different: in fifteen years of living in Finland he has not managed to find work in his own branch.

Yüzlü, 41, speaks excellent Finnish. - Helsingin Sanomat
So, if you are looking for a Scandinavian woman and you have no idea how to get the Swedish Bikini Team member, you might want to broaden your search as Finland has women looking for you! What is the trade-off? Well first, they are not Swedish, although some are Swedish-speaking. And some people consider Finland not to be part of Scandinavia. That however only becomes a problem if any of your friends ever manage to get themselves a Swedish babe. And the chances of that happening are low.

And once you have found her, you are probably much better off bringing her back home. It really is difficult to find work in Finland and when you do, the salaries are almost always much lower, and the taxes much higher. It was a painful decision for me to move back but seeing how many of my friends continue to struggle, I know that it was the right decision for me. We often entertained the idea of moving back prior to purchasing a house earlier this year. But the plan was to buy our own business instead of trying to find a good-paying job.

Add to Google

Wednesday, August 4

Same-Sex Marriage Invented in 1969!

Every time there is a news story about judges backing gay marriage I end up working on this post. However, I never get enough energy (or interest) to bother posting it. However, today's ruling in California must have pushed me enough to publish it in response to all the BS in attacking real marriage. So here goes.

Don't take this post the wrong way. I am all for having some form of legal union for same-sex couples.

However, I am against turning our society upside-down by liberal attempts to change the definition of marriage into something that marriage has never been. And that is the point of this post.

The argument by the left to legalize gay marriage has been presented as some sort of historical injustice where (traditional) marriages have been given legal recognition and that gay marriages have not, as part of some sort of discrimination against gay couples.

The problem for me is that upon further investigation, the real history of gay marriage goes all the way back to...1969.

Basically, gay marriage is just another bad idea that came out of the sixties.

Take a look at Wikipedia's entry for gay marriage. Sure it refers all the way back to ancient times, but the whole story is all guessing. the one conclusion that you can get from reading the 'history' of gay marriage is that there was no gay marriage in the past. Really, here are a couple of examples. Take this concerning Greece:
In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component. Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the case of Sparta, where the relationship was intended to further a young boy's military training. While the relationship was generally life long and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture and the relationship continued even after participants entered into traditional marriage to women as was expected in the culture when men reached age 30.(citation needed - Wikipedia
Hmm, pretty thin as far as gay marriage goes. And take this history of same sex marriage in the US:
In the United States during the 19th century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely assumed that sexual activities were not part of the relationship.

Rev. Troy Perry performed the first public gay wedding in the United States in 1969, but it was not legally recognized, and in 1970, Metropolitan Community Church filed the first-ever lawsuit seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages. The lawsuit was not successful. In March 2005, two Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with multiple counts of solemnizing a marriage without a license in the State of New York. The charges were the first brought against clergy for performing same-sex unions in North America, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based gay rights group.

The earliest use of the phrase "commitment ceremony" as an alternative term for "gay wedding" appears to be by Bill Woods who, in 1990, tried to organize a mass "commitment ceremony" for Hawaii's first gay pride parade. Similarly, Reverend Jimmy Creech of the First United Methodist Church performed his first "commitment ceremony" of a same-sex couple in 1990 in North Carolina. In January, 1987, Morningside Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends became the first Quaker Meeting to take a same-sex marriage under its care with the marriage of John Bohne and William McCann on May 30, 1987. Although several other Meetings held “Ceremonies of Commitment, Morningside was the first to refer to the relationship as a marriage and afford it equal status. - Wikipedia
So there you have. The strongest historical reference in the US of gay marriage is something that was not really a marriage at all, basically living as female roommates. And the first real US gay marriage was in 1969 and now the courts are fighting to declare it equal to marriages that have been going on for centuries. This boggles the mind.

Interestingly enough, fresh from Europe comes a ruling noting that there is no human right for gays to gay marriage. Given the lack of any true founding in society of gay marriage, it is not a surprise to see this kind of ruling. It is only a surprise given that you would think Europe would support this in all areas as part of their progressive agenda.
A panel of seven judges ruled unanimously Thursday that the couple was not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry in Europe's human rights convention.

The judges said there was "an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples," but left it to individual states to decide what form that should take. - Yahoo News
And here is a neat explanation of how this new invention of Gay Marriage is getting shoved into our society:
Up until the early 1990s, when judges started acting as engines to install same-sex marriage, it did not seem to occur to most people that marriage meant anything other than the marriage of men and women. Judge Tauro’s affectation is to have us believe that it is quite as natural and legitimate now to assume that any couple of the same sex would be as plausible a candidate for marriage as the coupling, more familiar, of a man and a woman. One would hardly know, from Tauro’s opinion, that there are compelling arguments, grounded in nature and moral reasoning, that call into serious question the coherence of any arrangement that would call itself “marriage” while detaching itself from the union of a man and a woman. Tauro might have serious arguments to make against that case, but that argument has to be made. This late in the seasons of our experience, the overthrow of the traditional understanding of marriage is an act still sufficiently momentous that it deserves to have the reasons assembled to justify itself. Tauro simply begins by presupposing the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and the “irrational prejudice” of anyone who would deny it. As Bertrand Russell once said, presupposing has every advantage over demonstration that theft has over honest labor. - Bench Memos, National Review

Note again that this is all current (recent) history all trying to pervert centuries of common practice.

Also note that I am for some sort of civil arrangement to give gay couples benefits that they are looking for such as next of kin, etc. I would also say tax benefits as well but wonder exactly what benefits that might be given that the marriage penalty is coming back. One issue I do have though is that if we are going to start accepting the registration of alternate associations, where do we draw the line?

Finally, the position I have is that marriage is what it always was and it is assinine to attack it as part of appeasement to progressives. It is like arguing about how many cents are in a dollar. It is just plain stupid and those who do this are the very people that are helping to destroy this country.
Add to Google

Tuesday, August 3

Obama Administration - Failure to Enforce Immigration Law - 'Foreign Policy'

I have to say that I am not surprised to hear today that the drunk driver who killed a nun was an illegal alien. Sadly this is because when I first heard the name of the drunk driver I immediately wondered if he was an illegal alien simply because he had a Hispanic name. And not for anything, this is not the first time an illegal alien killed on the highways of the Capital region.
The man suspected of drunken driving and killing a Catholic nun in Prince William County this weekend is an illegal immigrant who was awaiting deportation and who federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings, police said Monday.

The man, Carlos Montano, a county resident, had been arrested by police twice before on drunk-driving charges, and on at least one of those occasions county police reported him to federal authorities.

"We have determined that he is in the country illegally. He has been arrested by Prince William County Police in the past," said Officer Jonathan Perok, a police spokesman, who said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was notified at the time of one of those arrests. - Washington Times
So here we have an illegal alien who had multiple contacts with the police, mainly through drunk driving, who for some reason the Federal Government decided that he was not enough of a criminal to warrant detention and deportation. You see, non-deportation by the Federal Government is actually part of some bizarre foreign policy. How do we know? Because the US Government's complaint to stop Arizona's illegal alien law states so:
And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries. - Arizona Complaint
And they further state in their complaint that the Government:
may even decide not to pursue removal of the alien if deferred federal enforcement will help pursue some other goal of the immigration system. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. - Arizona Complaint
It would be logical to assume that the Government would naturally want to remove from the country an illegal alien with a drunk driving arrest, and especially one with multiple drunk driving arrests. Again, the Government's complaint notes that the Government is busy trying to target illegal alien criminals, and even used this reason in their fight to stop Arizona's law, because of some fear that they will not be able to target these criminals if forced to deal with ordinary illegal aliens:
In exercising its significant enforcement discretion, the federal government prioritizes for arrest, detention, prosecution, and removal those aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety. Consistent with these enforcement priorities, the federal government principally targets aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage; aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders; certain gang members; aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants; and fugitive aliens, especially those with criminal records. - Arizona Complaint
This makes me wonder, just what kind of illegal alien criminals is the Government targeting to reduce the threat to 'public safety'? I would think that deporting drunk driving illegal aliens a given. Apparently not so. Also makes you wonder about their comment just what an illegal alien gang member have to do before he becomes targeted by ICE?

Not for anything, why is the Government spending all this money to hunt down criminal aliens while at the same time letting other criminal aliens out of jail? Perhaps the Government should be reminded of the simple proverb 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' which Wiktionary so nicely explains:
It is preferable to have a small but certain advantage than a mere potential of a greater one. - Wiktionary
And as a bonus, the Government would not have to spend money to hunt these people down given that they are already in custody. It just boggles the mind that police are letting free illegal aliens criminals instead of simply deporting them.

And since this latest crime drove me to post on this let me comment about the following recent illegal alien death.
EL PASO, Texas - A 15-year-old Mexican boy shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent was among El Paso's most wanted juvenile immigrant smugglers, according to federal arrest records reviewed by the Associated Press.

The records show Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka had been arrested at least four times since 2008 and twice in the same week in February 2009 on suspicion of smuggling illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. Hernandez was repeatedly arrested along the U.S. side of the border near downtown El Paso, not far from where he was killed, but was never charged with a crime by federal prosecutors. - AZ Central (Click to read the whole story)
This story is troublesome because the Government knew that this teenager was smuggling illegal aliens across the boarder and still they did not throw him in jail. Oddly enough, he would probably be alive today if the Government prosecuted these criminals. Instead, they taught him that there was no real fear of being caught because nothing would happen to him. Unfortunately for him, this assumption contributed to his death.

And just to be clear, this was not any human smuggler. As the story notes, he was 'was among El Paso's most wanted juvenile immigrant smugglers'. and still, the government let him go. This is beyond irresponsible. It is criminal behavior on behalf of the Government.

Add to Google